8
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      The Safety of Baduanjin Exercise: A Systematic Review

      review-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Objectives

          Baduanjin exercise is a form of Qigong exercise therapy that has become increasingly popular worldwide. The aims of the current systematic review were to summarize reported adverse events potentially associated with Baduanjin exercise based on currently available literature and to evaluate the quality of the methods used to monitor adverse events in the trials assessed.

          Methods

          The English databases PubMed, Cochrane library, and EMbase were searched from inception to October 2020 using the keywords “Baduanjin” or “eight session brocade.” Only studies that included Baduanjin exercise therapy were included.

          Results

          Forty-seven trials with a total of 3877 participants were included in this systematic review. Twenty-two studies reported protocols for monitoring adverse events, and two studies reported the occurrence of adverse events during training. The adverse events reported included palpitation, giddiness, knee pain, backache, fatigue, nervousness, dizziness, shoulder pain, chest tightness, shortness of breath, and muscle ache.

          Conclusions

          Only two studies reported adverse events that were potentially caused by Baduanjin exercise. Adverse events related to Baduanjin exercise in patients with chronic fatigue syndrome may include muscle ache, palpitation, giddiness, knee pain, backache, fatigue, nervousness, dizziness, shoulder pain, chest tightness, and shortness of breath. Further studies conducted in accordance with the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials statement guideline incorporating monitoring of adverse events are recommended. Additional clinical trials in which Baduanjin exercise is used as a main intervention are needed, and further meta-analysis may be required to assess its safety and reach more informed conclusions in this regard in the future.

          Related collections

          Most cited references68

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Better reporting of harms in randomized trials: an extension of the CONSORT statement.

          In response to overwhelming evidence and the consequences of poor-quality reporting of randomized, controlled trials (RCTs), many medical journals and editorial groups have now endorsed the CONSORT (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials) statement, a 22-item checklist and flow diagram. Because CONSORT primarily aimed at improving the quality of reporting of efficacy, only 1 checklist item specifically addressed the reporting of safety. Considerable evidence suggests that reporting of harms-related data from RCTs also needs improvement. Members of the CONSORT Group, including journal editors and scientists, met in Montebello, Quebec, Canada, in May 2003 to address this problem. The result is the following document: the standard CONSORT checklist with 10 new recommendations about reporting harms-related issues, accompanying explanation, and examples to highlight specific aspects of proper reporting. We hope that this document, in conjunction with other CONSORT-related materials (http://www.consort-statement.org), will help authors improve their reporting of harms-related data from RCTs. Better reporting will help readers critically appraise and interpret trial results. Journals can support this goal by revising Instructions to Authors so that they refer authors to this document.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            The revised CONSORT statement for reporting randomized trials: explanation and elaboration.

            Overwhelming evidence now indicates that the quality of reporting of randomized, controlled trials (RCTs) is less than optimal. Recent methodologic analyses indicate that inadequate reporting and design are associated with biased estimates of treatment effects. Such systematic error is seriously damaging to RCTs, which boast the elimination of systematic error as their primary hallmark. Systematic error in RCTs reflects poor science, and poor science threatens proper ethical standards. A group of scientists and editors developed the CONSORT (Con solidated S tandards o f R eporting T rials) statement to improve the quality of reporting of RCTs. The statement consists of a checklist and flow diagram that authors can use for reporting an RCT. Many leading medical journals and major international editorial groups have adopted the CONSORT statement. The CONSORT statement facilitates critical appraisal and interpretation of RCTs by providing guidance to authors about how to improve the reporting of their trials. This explanatory and elaboration document is intended to enhance the use, understanding, and dissemination of the CONSORT statement. The meaning and rationale for each checklist item are presented. For most items, at least one published example of good reporting and, where possible, references to relevant empirical studies are provided. Several examples of flow diagrams are included. The CONSORT statement, this explanatory and elaboration document, and the associated Web site ( http://www.consort-statement.org ) should be helpful resources to improve reporting of randomized trials. Throughout the text, terms marked with an asterisk are defined at end of text.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Comparison of adaptive pacing therapy, cognitive behaviour therapy, graded exercise therapy, and specialist medical care for chronic fatigue syndrome (PACE): a randomised trial

              Summary Background Trial findings show cognitive behaviour therapy (CBT) and graded exercise therapy (GET) can be effective treatments for chronic fatigue syndrome, but patients' organisations have reported that these treatments can be harmful and favour pacing and specialist health care. We aimed to assess effectiveness and safety of all four treatments. Methods In our parallel-group randomised trial, patients meeting Oxford criteria for chronic fatigue syndrome were recruited from six secondary-care clinics in the UK and randomly allocated by computer-generated sequence to receive specialist medical care (SMC) alone or with adaptive pacing therapy (APT), CBT, or GET. Primary outcomes were fatigue (measured by Chalder fatigue questionnaire score) and physical function (measured by short form-36 subscale score) up to 52 weeks after randomisation, and safety was assessed primarily by recording all serious adverse events, including serious adverse reactions to trial treatments. Primary outcomes were rated by participants, who were necessarily unmasked to treatment assignment; the statistician was masked to treatment assignment for the analysis of primary outcomes. We used longitudinal regression models to compare SMC alone with other treatments, APT with CBT, and APT with GET. The final analysis included all participants for whom we had data for primary outcomes. This trial is registered at http://isrctn.org, number ISRCTN54285094. Findings We recruited 641 eligible patients, of whom 160 were assigned to the APT group, 161 to the CBT group, 160 to the GET group, and 160 to the SMC-alone group. Compared with SMC alone, mean fatigue scores at 52 weeks were 3·4 (95% CI 1·8 to 5·0) points lower for CBT (p=0·0001) and 3·2 (1·7 to 4·8) points lower for GET (p=0·0003), but did not differ for APT (0·7 [−0·9 to 2·3] points lower; p=0·38). Compared with SMC alone, mean physical function scores were 7·1 (2·0 to 12·1) points higher for CBT (p=0·0068) and 9·4 (4·4 to 14·4) points higher for GET (p=0·0005), but did not differ for APT (3·4 [−1·6 to 8·4] points lower; p=0·18). Compared with APT, CBT and GET were associated with less fatigue (CBT p=0·0027; GET p=0·0059) and better physical function (CBT p=0·0002; GET p<0·0001). Subgroup analysis of 427 participants meeting international criteria for chronic fatigue syndrome and 329 participants meeting London criteria for myalgic encephalomyelitis yielded equivalent results. Serious adverse reactions were recorded in two (1%) of 159 participants in the APT group, three (2%) of 161 in the CBT group, two (1%) of 160 in the GET group, and two (1%) of 160 in the SMC-alone group. Interpretation CBT and GET can safely be added to SMC to moderately improve outcomes for chronic fatigue syndrome, but APT is not an effective addition. Funding UK Medical Research Council, Department of Health for England, Scottish Chief Scientist Office, Department for Work and Pensions.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Journal
                Evid Based Complement Alternat Med
                Evid Based Complement Alternat Med
                ECAM
                Evidence-based Complementary and Alternative Medicine : eCAM
                Hindawi
                1741-427X
                1741-4288
                2021
                21 January 2021
                21 January 2021
                : 2021
                : 8867098
                Affiliations
                1Department of Rehabilitation, Fujian University of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Fuzhou, Fujian 350000, China
                2Department of Prevention and Health Care, Fujian University of Traditional Chinese Medicine Subsidiary Rehabilitation Hospital, Fuzhou, Fujian 350000, China
                3Department of Rheumatism and Immunity, The Second Affiliated Hospital of Fujian Traditional Chinese Medical University, Fuzhou, Fujian 350000, China
                4Department of Rehabilitation Assessment, Fujian University of Traditional Chinese Medicine Subsidiary Rehabilitation Hospital, Fuzhou, Fujian 350000, China
                5Department of Orthopaedic Rehabilitation, Fujian University of Traditional Chinese Medicine Subsidiary Rehabilitation Hospital, Fuzhou, Fujian 350000, China
                6Fujian Key Laboratory of Rehabilitation Technology, 13 Hudong Road, Fuzhou, Fujian 350000, China
                Author notes

                Academic Editor: Xue-Qiang Wang

                Author information
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4887-5442
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9508-5144
                https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9432-8901
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3679-2228
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6121-4892
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0440-3419
                Article
                10.1155/2021/8867098
                7847359
                33552220
                a527c550-91bc-4cb7-a9ee-e9ab2e6d8746
                Copyright © 2021 Jianqi Fang et al.

                This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

                History
                : 20 September 2020
                : 25 November 2020
                : 8 January 2021
                Funding
                Funded by: Central Guide to Local Science and Technology Development
                Award ID: 2018L3009
                Categories
                Review Article

                Complementary & Alternative medicine
                Complementary & Alternative medicine

                Comments

                Comment on this article